Katherine Boneda Bradley v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration
Filing
56
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION it is the judgment of the Court this matter is reversed and remanded for further administrative action under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Signed by Honorable Mary Geiger Lewis on 03/28/2019. (cpeg, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
KATHERINE BONEDA BRADLEY,
Plaintiff,
vs.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security
Administration,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Civil Action No. 2:16-1159-MGL
ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
AND REVERSING AND REMANDING FOR FURTHER ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
This is a Social Security appeal in which Plaintiff Katherine Boneda Bradley seeks judicial
review of the final decision of Defendant Nancy A. Berryhill (Berryhill denying her claim for
disability insurance benefits . The parties are represented by excellent counsel. The matter is
before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (Report) of the United States
Magistrate Judge suggesting to the Court this matter be reversed and remanded for further
administrative action under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The Report was made in
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation
has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final determination remains with the
Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo
determination of those portions of the Report to which specific objection is made, and the Court
may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge or
recommit the matter with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
The Magistrate Judge filed the Report on January 24, 2019. ECF No. 50. On February 7,
2019, Berryhill filed her Notice of Not Filing Objections to the Report. ECF No. 54. “[I]n the
absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead
must ‘only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the
recommendation.’” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005)
(quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note). Moreover, a failure to object waives
appellate review. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985).
After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case pursuant to the standard
set forth above, the Court adopts the Report and incorporates it herein. Therefore, it is the
judgment of the Court this matter is REVERSED AND REMANDED for further administrative
action under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 28th day of March 2019 in Columbia, South Carolina.
s/Mary Geiger Lewis
MARY GEIGER LEWIS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?